Loading ITAT cases…
38 orders · Page 1 of 1
Since no one appeared on behalf of the assessee and the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal, and the Department had no objection, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the CIT(Appeals) order was passed ex-parte without discussing the merits and in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted adequate opportunity to respond to the show cause notice by the Assessing Officer due to an unreasonably short timeframe. The CIT(Appeals) also passed an ex-parte order without addressing the merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 92 days, stating that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the case, which violates Section 250(6) of the Act and principles of natural justice. The Tribunal decided to provide a last opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee did not respond to notices, the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the case, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) had passed an ex-parte order without substantial discussion on the merits and without properly outlining the points for determination, decision, and reasons as required by law. While the assessee might have sought adjournments or failed to respond to notices, the order was not passed in compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee did not respond to several notices, the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the case. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to grant a last opportunity to the assessee and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits, ensuring principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was observed that the impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) did not reflect any opportunity of hearing being provided to the assessee, thus violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the CIT(Appeals) order was not sustainable as it was passed ex-parte without considering the merits and without adhering to the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard at both the assessment and appellate stages. The CIT(A) issued only one notice to an incorrect email address, and the assessment proceedings also involved hurried show-cause notices with inadequate response periods, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the second appeal, noting that substantial justice should not be denied on technical grounds. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(Appeals) with a direction to decide it afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the recent amendment by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, empowers the CIT(A) to set aside assessment orders and refer cases back to the AO, even when the original assessment order was passed under Section 144 of the Act. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision, especially since principles of natural justice were not complied with.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as it was a duplicate appeal and another appeal with the correct PAN was filed. The DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s orders were not speaking orders as they lacked reasoning and analysis of the evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that a mistake in mentioning the correct section of law cannot be a ground for rejecting an application. The CIT(E) should have allowed the assessee to rectify the clerical error. The impugned order was not sustainable as it was based solely on an incorrect mention of the provision of law.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice cannot be denied on technical grounds and that the object of procedural rules is to advance justice. The Tribunal condoned the 9-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee did not respond to notices, the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits. Considering the ex-parte nature of both orders and the request for another opportunity, the Tribunal decided to provide one last opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the recent amendment by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, empowers the CIT(A) to set aside assessment orders and refer cases back to the AO, even when the original assessment order was passed under Section 144 of the Act. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision, especially since principles of natural justice were not complied with.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s orders were not speaking orders as they lacked reasoning and analysis of the evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) order was not sustainable as it was passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee did receive hearing notices, considering the prayer for one more opportunity, it was fit to set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee came from an agricultural background with limited knowledge of tax laws and had requested another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). Considering this, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and condoned the delay. It was noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The assessee's counsel submitted that the appeal was defective because the Tribunal fees could not be paid and requested to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 407 days, acknowledging that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal earlier due to non-receipt of notices. The CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was set-aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's delay in filing the appeal and condoned it. It was observed that the assessee had not been effectively represented before the lower authorities, and the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte. To ensure natural justice, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The tribunal condoned the delay of 231 days, finding sufficient cause for the delay. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits regarding the assessee's share in the property and claimed deductions. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the delay was reasonable and bona fide. The delay of 54 days was condoned, and the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 976 days, finding that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the CIT(A). The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication, with a direction for the assessee to appear before the CIT(A) during the course of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the negligence of her IT counsel. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee requested one more opportunity to submit facts before the CIT(A). Considering this, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The tribunal decided that the rejection of the application for registration under Section 12AB was based on a misunderstanding of the trust's activities. The trust's activities were found to be aligned with its charitable objectives.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not fully comply with the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings and the CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order. The Tribunal, therefore, set aside the orders of both the AO and CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
At the time of hearing, the Authorized Representative stated that the assessee does not wish to press the appeal. This is because a subsequent assessment order has been passed, and an appeal has been filed against it.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to consider the assessee's reply and did not issue a show-cause notice before rejection. The Tribunal also noted that the initial phase of a trust's activities should not be a barrier to registration.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's explanation regarding the source of cash deposits was submitted late in the assessment proceedings and that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte decision. The Tribunal found that the documents and explanations required factual verification.
The Tribunal held that the grant was not a revenue receipt and not taxable. It further held that the amount was not taxable under Section 41(1) as there was no remission or cessation of liability, as the entire amount was paid to cane growers as per the grant's mandate.